In general I will still say that the best RAW converter is the one you are most familiar with, also with X Trans files.

All raw software developers do different trade off's and one can not say in general that one converter is better than an other, it all depends on the subjectand in fact on every single file.The latest normal Bayer sensors, for instance the ones from Sony, can withstand a lot of rather aggressive sharpening to bring out a lot of detail.With the Fuji X trans files I do not see an advantage in detail recovery compared to those. And if you manage to get out a lot of detail it is also with a lot of artefacts mostly.For my workflow I like Lightroom the most. But for X-Trans landscape work the results are mostly too soft or I start seeing a kind of paint brush effect that I do not like. With Photo Ninja I might get more detail out of the files, and foliage looks more natural. But depending on the image there are also color artefacts popping up that I am not able to repair without degrading the image in another way. Programs like Capture One and Aperture are somewhere in the middle regarding trade off between detail/sharpness and artefacts.So for myself I would be very happy if Fuji would leave the X-Trans technology because I like using some of their camera's. I would prefer they opt for general Bayer sensors perhaps without anti aliasing filter but with higher pixel density that allow oversampling with a choice of actual pixel output. That is at the present state of sensor development.

FWIW, I was having a similar experience converting NEF in ViewNX 2 or LR5. After a longish discussion with Jeff Schewe, who insisted that RAW is RAW and that different mfrs make different choices for defaults, I went back and did the comparison and found that I could make my LR results the same as the Nikon conversion (or I should say imperceptibly different). This only involved applying a wee bit of extra sharpening and noise reduction in LR. The link to my thread from earlier this year is here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=78769.0 if you would find it helpful.Update: I guess the tif images aren't showing (at least in Chrome), but I could click on them to get a peek. The jpegs are fine.

In general I will still say that the best RAW converter is the one you are most familiar with, also with X Trans files.

With all due respect, this is the sort of answer that I hear from those who are invested in a particular raw convertor and don't want to entertain the possibility that there might be something better. Every comparison that I have seen of Photo Ninja and ACR/LR with X-Trans files shows PN to be far superior. The same is true with other cameras and sensors. I have performed countless head-to-head comparisons of PN and ACR with files from a Sony RX1 and a Pentax K-5, and there is nothing that I can do to bring the ACR images up to the level of the PN images. It's not simply a matter of default settings. I can work for hours in ACR and not equal what I get from PN with relatively little effort. Run the comparisons, and see for yourself. Just take the time to learn how Photo Ninja's defaults and adjustment tools work.

I can understand how one might prefer LR, because of it's workflow and organization, but not because of its IQ.

PN is the best looking initial default XTrans raw conversion between Lightroom, Aperture, Iridient, and PN. Detail and small shapes look great in PN.PN also makes a prettier, better looking Nikon raw conversion, btw. At least as far as the color hues...Didn't check Capture One 'cause I didn't like it when I tried it for Nikon files two years ago. I like printing from LR.

With all due respect, this is the sort of answer that I hear from those who are invested in a particular raw convertor and don't want to entertain the possibility that there might be something better. Every comparison that I have seen of Photo Ninja and ACR/LR with X-Trans files shows PN to be far superior. The same is true with other cameras and sensors. I have performed countless head-to-head comparisons of PN and ACR with files from a Sony RX1 and a Pentax K-5, and there is nothing that I can do to bring the ACR images up to the level of the PN images. It's not simply a matter of default settings. I can work for hours in ACR and not equal what I get from PN with relatively little effort. Run the comparisons, and see for yourself. Just take the time to learn how Photo Ninja's defaults and adjustment tools work.

I can understand how one might prefer LR, because of it's workflow and organization, but not because of its IQ.

Rob

My conclusion from the above comparison images is quite different. The first image really says it all with the others just confirming it. Photo Ninja uses stronger saturation and strong USM by default. In the first image you see ACR smoothing the background while PN creates artefacts by trying to sharpen it. There are definitely halos visible in the 200% crop of the wine bottle label. The coat of arms at the bottom also has strong over-saturation making it all bleed out relative to the ACR, C1 versions. The text edges definitely look more crisp and readable on the PN vs ACR which looks soft.

I'm not an ACR fanboi, I dont even use it. To me the ACR and C1 look better because I know I can sharpen from that point. PN is clearly a usable product that is quite good for a first version. Didn't the developer create Bibble in the past, so they have years of experience that show? Aperture looks the weakest.

To me strong saturation and sharpening is not better as a default. In most images it looks Disney not realistic.

Yeaaahhh... Except that PN doesn't use USM at all. It uses a species of deconvolution, and it knocks Lr and ACR into the middle of next week as far as detail extraction is concerned...

Nope - PN comes from the authors of Noise Ninja. AfterShot Pro is the dismal offspring of the dismal Bibble.

Good to know. In any event their deconvolution method is trying to create some artificial hard pattern from what should be a smooth background in the first image. They should look into when their system engages.

Note the letter F has the 2 horizontal components converted into a question mark like object. The halos around the lines. The mosquito noise around the lettering. The bleeding blue on the shield.

I use Photo Ninja regularly for raw images from a Sony RX1 and a Pentax K-5II, and I never see artifacts at 100%. Also, the level of detail easily beats any other raw convertor that I have tried. Perhaps it is different for Fuji X-Trans sensors.

With X-Fuji files I have found that Photo Ninja does a good job on natural subjects. I tend to back off from sharpening too much in PN instead using Focus Magic to focus the conversions. I don't like their toolset setup however.

LR is doing better at version 5.3 with greens but still renders other details on rocks strangely to me. LR toolset is excellent so I tend to lead with it.

Best result I have gotten is from Iridient raw developer. But it's MAC only and my workflow is mainly PC based. But I have the use of one MAC since I use a MacBook Pro with boot camp.

Note the letter F has the 2 horizontal components converted into a question mark like object. The halos around the lines. The mosquito noise around the lettering. The bleeding blue on the shield.

If you see these images at 25-50% onscreen ; i see an F on the Ninja side and something not clear on the other side...false detail seems to be better detail to me ... in this case.These images are made for printing; even printed big they are printed at about 25-50% - it is then that you can decide if false detail is false detail.

I am not saying PhotoNinja is always better, but in some cases it is and in others not. I prefer the workflow of ACR best.

In the first image with the watering can PN seems to render the background ugly.To me it looks oversharpened.I think you'd have to carefully select which subject you convert and which type of image.I'd not see PN or LR as a clear winner here.Cheers~Chris